If Reader01 encounters a child afraid of clowns while he is aimlessly wandering around in one, clearly the child should own that reaction and not expect him to take it off. Because, fuck! Comfort isthat important!_________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

If Reader01 encounters a child afraid of clowns while he is aimlessly wandering around in one, clearly the child should own that reaction and not expect him to take it off. Because, fuck! Comfort isthat important!

What if Reader1 experiences discomfort, for the sake of argument physically equal to the child's, if he doesn't dress as a clown?

If Reader01 encounters a child afraid of clowns while he is aimlessly wandering around in one, clearly the child should own that reaction and not expect him to take it off. Because, fuck! Comfort isthat important!

What if Reader1 experiences discomfort, for the sake of argument physically equal to the child's, if he doesn't dress as a clown?

equally relevant question: what if Cookie Monster was actually a cashmere sweater named Steve?

although I'm not sure how much you actually care, the end goals of feminism are:
an end to all systematic exploitation of one group by another and, therefore:
an end to the gender binary
an end to racism
an end to homophobia
an end to exploitative capitalism
an end to rape culture
an end to exploitative labor practices
an end to the military/prison/industrial complex
affordable healthcare (especially reproductive healthcare) and welfare, and retirement benefits, available to all
education and job training for all
maybe open borders, depending on which feminists you ask

obviously not all feminists would agree with me on all of these and some of these categories are very broad, but this is what my feminism is about, in any case.

oh, and because I'm a languages nerd (Spanish/French double major, political science minor) and thus am aware of the ways in which privileging some languages over others is a harmful legacy of colonialism, an end to the privileging of European languages over indigenous ones, required learning of at least two different foreign languages for all students.

If Reader01 encounters a child afraid of clowns while he is aimlessly wandering around in one, clearly the child should own that reaction and not expect him to take it off. Because, fuck! Comfort isthat important!

What if Reader1 experiences discomfort, for the sake of argument physically equal to the child's, if he doesn't dress as a clown?

equally relevant question: what if Cookie Monster was actually a cashmere sweater named Steve?

Of course, in a discussion about what one should do if one discomforts someone without engaging in physical interaction with the discomforted party acknowledging that some behavioural protocols could end up being uncomfortable for the "discomforter" is completely useless.

If Reader01 encounters a child afraid of clowns while he is aimlessly wandering around in one, clearly the child should own that reaction and not expect him to take it off. Because, fuck! Comfort isthat important!

What if Reader1 experiences discomfort, for the sake of argument physically equal to the child's, if he doesn't dress as a clown?

equally relevant question: what if Cookie Monster was actually a cashmere sweater named Steve?

What if I were a literal pair of striped pants?!_________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

it never ceases to amaze me how much you want to generalize into useless abstraction a conversation about sexual harassment. it's like you're deeply threatened by actual concrete discussion so you retreat to empty generalities and irrelevant hypotheticals.

to put that empty vacuous attempt at derailment back into its proper context, please, explain what the use is of asking "what if Reader1 experiences discomfort equal to that of the person he's sexually harassing if he doesn't sexually harass them?"

I mean, basically, he's talking about knowingly giving off warning signs to women that he is a person who might harass them further, attack them, rape them, etc - and they're supposed to happily put up with that just so he can go on his merry way._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]

it never ceases to amaze me how much you want to generalize into useless abstraction a conversation about sexual harassment. it's like you're deeply threatened by actual concrete discussion so you retreat to empty generalities and irrelevant hypotheticals.

to put that empty vacuous attempt at derailment back into its proper context, please, explain what the use is of asking "what if Reader1 experiences discomfort equal to that of the person he's sexually harassing if he doesn't sexually harass them?"

I acutally think that the problem of the discomforter-discomforted co-existence is present in more areas than just sexual harassment and I actually wanted to address problems related to manifestations of this issue in areas other than sexual harassment.

And no, I don't consider this extreme "thread-hijacking", I consider it noticing a pattern, present in the discussed topic and trying to deal with it in other areas too, perhaps in an attempt to draw more conclusions about the topic we discuss.

Not every "not-clearly-in-coordination-with-your-view" statement is a freaking attack on your view.

Perhaps, for instance, since we deal with discomfort, it would be important to note that "being discomforted by someone who knows discomforts you" is not necessarily something that you have any rational reason to whine about, since there are reasons people get discomforted like "god hates fags-your marriage is an imposition on my freedom to have a nation with pure religion".

The point of my original question was that "Being discomforted means shit" And as I said numerous times already, it was an attempt to deal with humans being discomforted by other's behaviour while transcending sexual harassment and looking at this issue in different areas.

It was not, for crying out loud, an attempt to justify sexual harassment.

So, it doesn't matter if the conversation is about rape culture and sexual harassment in general, you gonna talk about what'choo wanna that it kinda makes you think of, and that riffs off of other people's derailing generalizations like they actually have a point. But it's not a threadjack because you say so.

"Being discomforted" has, in this conversation, become something of a euphemism for, "Being afraid for ones immediate safety, and being afflicted with a not-unreasonable uncertainty whether other parties in one's vicinity are going to walk on by, or physically assault you, or anything inbetween."

So, no, we are NOT just talking about "being uncomfortable" like someone dealing with sand in their shorts, an itch they can't scratch, an ache in their joints, or someone else's bad body odor.

We are talking about the burden of constant fear for, and evaluation of, one's status of personal safety in public, and how men who -aren't- jackass harassing rapists-in-waiting can share that burden and help lift it from the shoulders of women when it's neither of their faults that the burden exists in the first place. We're talking about men maybe taking a few steps that might inconvenience them on occasion to help women keep from feeling driven out of public spaces.

That's a hell of a lot bigger than "discomfort," so let's not get hung up on THAT word now, pretty please?

Or what if Reader01 is not comfortable unless he can freely grope and/or rape any woman in his vicinity?

That was way over the line, stripey. Reader1 has never been arguing about the right to threaten someone. He has been trying to define harassment specifically.

While at this point I'm generally on your side of the argument, do not use sentences like wanting to rape lightly. That's even worse than Godwin's Law._________________Welcome to Sinfest, the only place with a 46 pages long thread about sentient toasters

I don't think that stripey was trying to accuse Reader1 of actually saying that, but pointing out the ridiculousness of the logical jump from going from "discomfort" as we've been using it in this conversation to other irrelevant generalized usages as if it was interchangeable.

It's not. And if you plug what "discomfort" has meant in this conversation thus far into the generalized arguments as presented, that kind if IS what it sounds like.

What the newbies don't know, is that the people they're arguing with already have a history of basically only posting to complain and derail in the feminist threads, and either joined the forum, or resumed posting to complain about the content of these strips._________________